Americans on both sides of the aisle are worried about outside influences on the US electoral process. However each side has its own take and concerns.

The White House’s increasing inaccessibility to the press; the violence against lawmakers and journalists; the apparent ease with which Russia preyed on Americans’ deep political divisions and distrust of government; and the president’s efforts to delegitimize the media, his opponents, unfavorable court rulings, and independent investigations into his campaign’s ties with Moscow, have all contributed to a sense that American democracy is battered and besieged.

However, there are administration supporters who believe that Trump is speaking directly to the people via Twitter and keeping the press at bay and under attack is the way to get the Trump agenda moving forward.

The firing of CIA Director Comey by President Trump seems to be the flashpoint on some people's concern that democracy is under attack. However, others see the firing as necessary as well to move an agenda forward--the means justify the end.

What do you think?

Is democracy under attack in the US

or are fears of the loss of democracy much ado about nothing?

Editor's Note:Comments Policy — We welcome comments, posts, and informed debate from a wide range of perspectives. Personal attacks, insulting/ vulgar posts, or repetitious/ false tirades have no place and can result in moderation or banning. Civility — Clear-minded criticism is welcome, but play the ball and not the person. This includes speculation about motives or what ‘sort of person’ someone is. Civility, gentle humor, and staying on topic are superior debating tools.Relevance — Please maintain focus on the topic at hand. Do not attempt to solve big problems in a single comment or to offer as fact what simply are opinions.Ponder before you post — It’s bad form to dominate a discussion either by multiple posts in a row or too many posts in a given forum.

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. Something called "The Patriot Act" did not come close to being patriotic but was simply a marketing tool to get $hit passed. Voting rights being curtailed instead of cultivated for greater American participation is a crime by those in power.

Accepting behavior by a neophyte like Trump with the excuse "He's new and doesn't know any better" is a knife to the throat of American Democracy. First Republicans sold their Brand to Trump for power, then Americans sold their rights and freedoms to Trump because they were angry and frustrated those in their government were working for their party's good, not the good of the people or the nation.

It used to be if questionable behavior were PERCEIVED a politician would resign, even after sane people questioned Trump and Trump appointees, it was not till their crimes were arrogantly exposed by the media that Trump fired them to keep he and his family in power.

When did it become acceptable for the President to openly practice nepotism, to support white supremacy, to use the power of his office to 'Twitterize' his own hatred and bigotry to individual citizens, allies, and to antagonize would-be enemies to attack this nation for his own hubris.

View All Related MessagesI take particular issue with someone referring to our form of government as a "Democracy?" The United States has a "Republican" form of government and nowhere will you find the term democracy in the bill of rights or the US Constitution (law of the land. Our founders both feared and hated democracies and for good reason, they never last and generally are a transitional form of government.

After leaving the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government the delegates had given the United States. Franklin’s response was, “A republic if you can keep it.” In The Federalist, No. 10 by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. Madison took a dim view of a pure democracy, arguing, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

The real answer is "All of the Above" but it's actually not limited to just the reasons listed. Yes, the reasons listed are indeed true and correct but it's so much more than that.

Money In Politics: Yes, that's where all the various and sundry special interests are allowed into the fray. Remove this one and you'll make a large dent in the corruption in politics. And yes again, there are indeed ways to do it!

Uninformed Voters: This one's HUGE! in both the cause for the threat and the solution to it. Uninformed Voters and the lack of concern for the democratic process that goes with that uninformed status need to be eradicated and it'll be a multi-pronged solution that's needed to fix it. Better Education, Mandatory Military Service and Make Voting Mandatory for ALL Citizens and create and include a two-tier penalty for failure to vote. The first tier would be a serious jail sentence for EACH of the first tier violations; something like a year in jail. The second tier, after say five first tier violations, would be forfeiture of the violator's citizenship and voting rights.

Fake News & Social Media: Yes, and there are more than just the purveyors of Fake News that need to be held accountable for it wherever it crops up. The people who actually write and promote the fake views need to be held both civilly and criminally liable as do the promoters of the various News Outlets and Social Media portals for not properly policing the information that is conveyed over and through their mediums. It's called holding people responsible for the things they do and promote.

The Two-Party System: Yes, this is also a problem but it's newer than many, but not all, of the others. In today's day and age there are many more people in the country and both involved in and interested in what goes on, although not everyone is included in this group unfortunately. But the problem lies in the total number of approaches being presented to "fix" a problem and the limited number of political parties available to press for the respective solutions. Open the political process to MORE THAN two-parties and force the politicians into more of a parliamentary form of Congress where coalitions are required in order to govern and you'll have more of those solutions presented and available and also more of a compromise frame-of-mind required by those politicians to get anything done.

Continued ...

Message edited by user at 10/1/2017 10:59:07 AM

7. Tams Bixby (10/1/2017 10:45:04 AM) Message ID #291326

View All Related MessagesIn addition to the above you also have too much power invested in the politicians themselves, which needs to be divested from them i.e.:

The ability to vote their own pay raises (i.e. everybody gets a base salary and if they want more, require an issue be placed on their respective constituencies ballots);

The ability to vote themselves their own benefits (i.e. medical) and requirements (i.e. jury duty) (not available to their constituencies and vice-versa) etc.;

The lack of term limits for many of their offices promoting essentially a "Career Politician" capability;

An unspecified length of their "work week" allowing too much time for non-legislative hi-jinks;

Insufficient controls on fund raising AND campaign spending AND the auditing and publication of political accounts;

The lack of definitive Rules and Regulations concerning the divestiture of assets upon taking office which could lead to conflicts of interest;

No limits on the number of consecutive "Continuing Resolutions" able to be utilized in the budgeting process before passing an honest budget;

The lack of a Recall Process available to the citizenry for and against ALL political electees if/when their respective citizenry deems it necessary;

The lack of definitive Rules and Regulations on the Openess of Government;

While I agree with your premise I don't see where you've answered the poll question. Mis-characterizing a "Republican" form of government by calling it a "Democratic" form of government isn't really an answer, at least in my book.